Gurmant Grewal

[Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act, November 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I applaud the comments by the hon. member, the efforts of the government in the human resources and skills development initiative. This is a small step, but it is a step in the right direction. On the other hand, there is lots to be done in the human resources and skills development area.

This is triggered by the shortage of skills in our country as well as the brain drain that has been taking place for a period of time. We know that there is brain drain, but there has been little effort by the government to capitalize on brain gain. What I mean by brain gain is the newer immigrants who migrate to Canada, who choose to come to this country to contribute and be meaningful participants.

There are many people who have lots of skills. Their degrees are properly recognized in other countries, but in Canada they are not recognized. I tabled a motion in 1998-99, which was debated in the House. In fact I am the only one who brought this issue to the House at the federal level and initiated the debate about the recognition of foreign academic credentials.

At that time I asked for two things from the government. One was that we need to standardize some sort of post-secondary education within the country. A person may have certain qualifications from one province, but if the person goes to another province, he or she cannot utilize that education. For example, a diploma for dental surgery from another province is not recognized by my province of British Columbia. I asked the government to ask the council of universities to develop a national standard for professional education and thereafter to use that standard in recognizing foreign academic credentials and experience.

When immigrants come to Canada they bring with them a lot of good education, professional skills and professional experience, but due to our system, which is lacking, those degrees are not recognized. As a result, doctors, engineers, professors and scientists have to work at menial jobs. They drive taxis, do janitorial work or work at gas stations. What happens to their skills they brought with them? Because of a lack of recognition in Canada, those skills are wasted. That is a shame. Both ways we lose; as a nation, we lose, and as new immigrants, they lose.

Ottawa pledged $50 million for skills development or language skills, I would say. For many years the government has been dancing around this issue. When my motion was opposed by the Liberals, they realized that they made a mistake and they included in the following throne speech a paragraph regarding recognizing foreign academic credentials. Time has passed and there has been no action.

I ask the member, rather than just dancing around the issue, what concrete steps has the government taken in recognizing those professional skills and experience newer immigrants bring to this country?

[Whistle Blower Rights and Protection Act, November 17th, 2004]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-288, an act respecting the protection of employees in the public service of Canada who on reasonable belief make allegations respecting wrongdoing in the public service of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of Newton—North Delta and indeed all Canadians, I am reintroducing my private member's bill with respect to the protection of employees in the public service who, on reasonable belief, make allegations respecting wrongdoing in the public service.

This bill, written with the assistance of actual whistleblowers, is also known as the whistleblower rights and protection act. The public interest is served when employees are free to expose wrongdoing, waste and abuse within the public service without fear of retaliation and discrimination.

Whistleblowers should be praised and rewarded, not punished or harassed. They should not pay for their public service by putting their jobs on the line. My bill would offer them protection from retaliation. This bill is a very important one and all members of the House should support it.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Criminal Code, November 15th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the constituents of Newton—North Delta to keep the ball rolling in the debate on Bill C-16, which amends the Criminal Code and makes consequential amendments to other acts to deal with drug-impaired driving. The bill authorizes trained police officers to test whether a person is impaired by drugs or alcohol and drugs in combination. It also authorizes the taking of samples of bodily fluids to test for the presence of drugs or drugs and alcohol.

Let us look at the background of this bill. Currently the Criminal Code criminalizes alcohol- or drug-impaired driving and imposes greater punishments on repeat offenders. Under section 253 one cannot operate or assist in operating a motor vehicle if impaired by alcohol or a drug. Anyone who commits an offence under section 253 is guilty of an indictable offence or an offence punishable on summary conviction.

While drug-impaired driving is illegal, there is no “legal limit” offence for drugs. The police may not demand physical sobriety tests or bodily fluid samples for drug-impaired driving investigations. The police usually rely upon symptoms of impairment, driving behaviour and witness testimony. As a result, convictions for drug-impaired driving are very rare.

Under Bill C-16, a three-step protocol is given, allowing police to intervene if they believe someone is driving while drug impaired. Clause 2 of the bill would allow police to demand standardized field sobriety tests where there is a reasonable suspicion that a driver has a drug in his or her body. These are physical coordination tasks administered roadside which measure whether a driver can multi-task. It would also allow police to demand drug recognition expert evaluations where the officer reasonably believes that a driver committed a drug-impaired driving offence. These are administered at the police station by a trained evaluation officer. Last, clause 2 would allow police to demand a sample of a bodily substance if the evaluating officer identifies that the impairment is from a specific type of drug.

Under Bill C-16 the result of an evaluation by an evaluating officer may be admitted as evidence in a criminal proceeding involving driving under the influence of an illegal psychoactive substance. Research indicates that 5% to 12% of drivers may now drive under the influence of cannabis and that this may increase to as much as 20% for male drivers under 25 years of age in British Columbia.

An examination of blood samples, driver records and crash records of 227 fatally injured drivers in B.C. showed that 11% involved alcohol and drugs and 9% involved drugs only. The most frequently found drug was, as members can guess, THC, the main psychoactive ingredient in cannabis. The Vancouver police have concluded that the involvement of drugs in driving is a significant factor adversely affecting highway safety and consequently should be of major concern to all Canadians.

A criminal case wrapped up last month in Surrey involving a youth who crashed his Ford Mustang into a rock fence in the 6,200 block of 264th Street, killing two of his passengers, both 16 years old, and seriously injuring a third one. According to a toxicologist, the young man had 144 micrograms of THC per litre of his blood. A level of 35 micrograms would affect a driver's ability to operate a motor vehicle; his level was more than four times that.

However, despite the evidence, the Crown was unable to obtain a conviction for driving while impaired by marijuana. It was simply too difficult under the current law. It is shameful for the lawmakers in the House.

The youth still has his driving licence and the parents of the deceased must watch this young man drive past their homes knowing that he was responsible for taking the lives of their sons. It is a pity.

The government has chosen to decriminalize marijuana without first ensuring that the necessary training, the tools and the ability to prosecute people for drug-impaired offences are in place. This legislation comes as an afterthought to the government. It is a delayed response to the intense criticism levelled against it by my party and other groups.

But even with Bill C-16, the training of law enforcement officers in the techniques to conduct field testing will not be complete until as late as 2008. The Liberal government of course intends to decriminalize marijuana long before that. Officers should be trained before the government proceeds with decriminalization.

According to data provided by the Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs, only 0.8% of marijuana users are charged with possession. That is less than 1%. Based on those numbers, there seems to be little excuse for rushing into decriminalization before the police are ready to deal with it.

As well, of the $11.9 million in funding being spent to address drug-impaired driving, some funding should be allocated for research into new technologies that would assess drug impairment on site, such as those that currently exist for detecting the presence of alcohol in blood.

In October 1995, ICBC sponsored the training of approximately 30 police officers in the field of drug recognition. This was the first course of its kind to be held in Canada. The intent of the drug recognition expert or DRE program was to give police officers the skills to detect and prosecute drug-impaired drivers. ICBC saw a need for this program because B.C. studies indicated that impairment due to drugs was involved in 15% to 20% of all driver fatalities.

So far the program has been extremely successful. Hundreds of 24 hour driving prohibitions have been issued to drivers affected by drugs. Several criminal court charges for driving while impaired by drugs have also been approved, resulting in court convictions. Since 1995, 15 of the original DREs have become DRE instructors. In March 1998 another DRE course was held in B.C., bringing the total number of DREs to over 50.

The government appears determined to proceed with loosening the laws concerning the use of marijuana. Decriminalization of marijuana, especially without an effective national drug strategy in place, will undoubtedly result in increased use, especially among young people.

The Conservative Party supports legislation that improves police officers' ability to detect drug impairment and detain suspected drug-impaired drivers for testing. We are concerned, however, that Bill C-16 would not train enough police officers in detection methods soon enough. As it stands now, sufficient officers will be trained only by 2007 or 2008, long after the Liberal government intends to decriminalize marijuana. That is not effective legislation.

Officers should be trained before decriminalization, not after. If we decriminalize the use of marijuana and then start training police officers, what is going to happen on the streets? There will be more accidents, more deaths and more innocent lives lost. That is not acceptable.

The Liberals are putting the cart before the horse. They have failed to recognize the need to lay the groundwork before proceeding with the decriminalization of marijuana. They have not even studied the consequences of decriminalizing marijuana to the extent of the quantity they have allowed. The Liberals are in the process of risking increased marijuana usage and opening up the possibility of an increase in deaths on our highways. Canadians expect better from the government.

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, November 15th, 2004]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-283, an act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce a bill that would amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and its regulations.

The bill would allow a Canadian citizen or a landed immigrant to provide an enforceable guarantee or post a bond while sponsoring a visitor. Sponsorship will provide stronger evidence of their intention to return home before their visas expire. A Canadian sponsor guarantees that the visitor will abide by the conditions of his or her visa and will return home before the visa expires.

Canada must have an efficient and effective visa system that is able to handle temporary visitors. My bill would minimize minister's permits and other political interference in the system and, in doing so, it would increase access and enhance fairness.

I would like to thank the opposition House leader, the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country for seconding the bill.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Committees of the House, November 3rd, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I see that more members wanted to ask some questions of the member. Could we have five minutes to ask a few more questions? You know that I was there to ask some questions.

[Criminal Code, November 1st, 2004]

Madam Speaker, congratulations on your appointment. It is nice to see you in the chair.

I am very pleased to rise today on behalf of the constituents of Newton--North Delta to participate in the debate on Bill C-13, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the DNA Identification Act and the National Defence Act.

In 1998 Bill C-3 enacted a national DNA data bank. The data bank officially opened on July 5, 2000. Bill C-35 in May 2004 introduced minor amendments to the act and now Bill C-13 adds further amendments which still do not address the concerns that I and my colleagues have raised. I have raised them in many speeches in the past.

The bill seeks to strengthen the laws regarding DNA collection and storage. Specifically, it adds more Criminal Code offences, moving some offences from the secondary designated offences list to the primary list. It allows DNA collection from a mentally disordered criminal, expands retroactive provisions, compels an offender to provide a sample, allows an order for a DNA sample after sentencing, and of course, permits the destruction of a sample.

Looking into the background, DNA identification, if used to its full potential, could be the single most important development in fighting crime since the introduction of fingerprints. However, police and provincial attorneys general have long argued that the legislation as enacted denied law enforcement agencies the full use of this wonderful technology.

The DNA Identification Act came into force in June 2000 and established the national DNA data bank which is operated by the RCMP. It allows judges to order the collection of DNA samples from convicted offenders and have the resulting profile stored in a convicted offenders index.

The national DNA data bank also includes a crime scene index containing profiles of DNA samples collected from crime scenes. This allows samples from various crime scenes to be compared with the convicted offenders index.

The act created two types of offences: primary and secondary. Primary designated offences are those which are the most serious, such as sexual offences, murder and manslaughter. Secondary designated offences are less serious, such as an assault or arson. Of course they are serious too but it depends on how one judges them.

For primary offences a DNA sample can be ordered by the court, unless the offender can prove it is not needed. For secondary offences a sample can be ordered if the judge believes it is needed.

Law enforcement agencies are critical of this legislation because, among other reasons, it does not allow for the taking of DNA samples at the time of charge, as fingerprints are. Also it does not permit samples to be taken retroactively from incarcerated criminals other than designated dangerous offenders, multiple sex offenders and multiple murderers.

Unfortunately while Bill C-13 offers some improvements on the original legislation, it does not address many of the concerns raised by police, the provincial attorneys general and the official opposition.

Specifically Bill C-13 does not address the requirement for a judicial order to make a data bank authorization for any offence committed before the law came into force in June 2000.

Police have also asked for the ability to collect a DNA sample at the time of charge, as is done with fingerprints, instead of upon conviction. There is no evidence or jurisprudence suggesting that such provisions would be in violation of the Constitution.

Another major flaw in the bill is that it does not provide for DNA collection upon conviction for all indictable offences, again as in the case of fingerprints.

An additional concern is the ability of a convicted offender to appeal to the court in order to prevent the collection of DNA. The DNA collection should flow automatically upon conviction. This is simply one more unnecessary impediment to effective law enforcement.

Furthermore, the DNA testing system is so backlogged that until sufficient resources are provided, any legislative changes made will not be meaningful. This legislation still does not address the issue of timely production of DNA results to bring dangerous offenders to justice and to ensure the safety of our communities. We need better tools.

For more than a decade the government has failed to provide law enforcement agencies with the tools and resources they need to effectively fight crime. In my riding of Newton—North Delta, marijuana grow ops, organized crime and gang violence are flourishing. Many murders have been committed in the vicinity and remain unsolved.

Past cuts to the RCMP by the government have only served to exacerbate matters. The Canadian Police Association says that the RCMP needs an immediate $250 million cash infusion, but news stories indicate the Liberal government is now considering another $100 million cut. It is shameful. This is just another demonstration of Liberal misplaced priorities.

What does it mean in real terms? Consider as an example Project Snowball. This massive RCMP probe into Canada's largest child pornography investigation tracked more than 2,000 Canadians, including 406 in British Columbia, among them 23 in my constituency in Surrey, suspected of possessing and distributing sexually explicit pictures of children. Remarkably, in over two years we have arrested less than 5% of those suspects. Many police forces in Canada still could not take any action, despite getting a list of suspects in January 2001. They simply do not have the resources nor the officers who are trained to do the job.

Project Snowball also underscored the lack of cooperation between the federal, provincial and municipal police forces in such major investigations. Police say that national cooperation is a nightmare, blaming a lack of resources, a lack of a coordinated national strategy, and laws that exact too light a sentence on pedophiles.

Police also need more help from the courts. They are fed up with the revolving door judicial system. Police work is frequently frustrated when officers are rearresting over and over the same criminals while they are on parole, house arrest and other largely ineffective court sanctions. That is shameful. There must be stiffer penalties for criminals, especially those with lengthy records or those who have committed violent crimes. While some criminals can be rehabilitated, others simply need to be taken off our streets. They should be behind bars.

Canadian police have a daunting task when battling child pornography. It is estimated that more than 100,000 child porn websites are on the worldwide web. This is a serious issue. I have lots of data I could share, but time is short.

Clifford Olson confessed to murdering 11 children. Around 55 women were murdered in British Columbia. All may have been saved if the DNA data bank had been established long ago and the police had more and better resources.

In conclusion, law enforcement must become a higher priority for the federal government. It is our collective responsibility as elected representatives in Parliament to make laws that have teeth. The onus is on the Liberal government to introduce meaningful legislation and accept important, meaningful amendments. So what if they come from the official opposition?

Bill C-13 does not go far enough in addressing the concerns my colleagues and I have raised. Ineffective legislation is good for nothing. This legislation must be strengthened and must be able to provide a powerful tool to fight crime in our communities.

[Health, October 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, my constituent, Alan Blumenfeld, got hepatitis C in 1981 through government controlled tainted blood and he still suffers today. The Liberals misled Parliament and hugely inflated compensation estimates. The Red Cross and Health Canada had warnings about the virus but chose to do nothing.

The billion dollar government compensation fund is just sitting and earning over $100 million in interest. Will the Prime Minister show some compassion and commit now to compensating all victims who got the virus through government controlled tainted blood?

[Sponsorship Program, October 22nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and his minions tell us that by lobbying for sponsorship funds his office was simply helping a constituent. Serge Savard is not a constituent of LaSalle--Émard but rather of Westmount--Ville-Marie. His group, Internationaux du Sport de Montréal, is also not located in LaSalle--Émard. In fact, Mr. Savard is the Prime Minister's golfing buddy. He is a crony who raised $1 million for the Prime Minister's leadership campaign.

Why does the Prime Minister not come clean and admit he milked the sponsorship Liberal slush fund for all it was worth?

[Committees of the House, October 21st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, there have been extensive discussions with all the parties and you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move that the first report of the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations, presented to the House earlier today, be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to)

[Riding of Newton--North Delta, October 21st, 2004]

Madam Speaker, among others, the following local issues are very important to the constitutes of Newton—North Delta.

Transportation and traffic congestion on Scott Road, 72nd Avenue, Highway 91 and Highway 10 is an ongoing problem, yet this government returns only 3% of the gas tax revenue to B.C. We need money for the construction of the South Fraser perimeter road.

With emergency services and beds cut in the Delta hospital, health services in Surrey and North Delta are inadequate, yet the Prime Minister's “fix for a generation” is not even a fix for a decade.

Auto theft, marijuana grow ops, prostitution, break and enter and organized crime put the safety of residents at risk. Laws without teeth and the revolving door justice system need to be fixed.

Newton—North Delta being the host of Burns Bog, we need the government's commitment to conserve the environment and the bog rather than waste resources on selling Kyoto.

We need resources for dredging the Fraser River, and the Fraser docks need expansion with better connections to road, rail and air transportation.

The misplaced priorities of the Liberal government are hurting our communities.